First of all, about the use of AI: A blog like this isn’t me asking AI for an answer I don’t know. I already know the answer it’s going to give, but I think that if I show you an objective tool is also giving the same answer, it’s like having a referee, so it limits my bias.
So, look at this:
My question: What does the impact of the higher moisture this is adding to the system have on the energy in the air?
Answer: Higher moisture increases the total energy (primarily enthalpy) in air at a given temperature, mainly via latent heat stored in water vapor.
My question: Would the excess SST in the eastern Pacific add to the moisture in the southwest?
Answer: Yes. Excess (above-normal) sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the eastern Pacific—particularly in and around the Gulf of California and the waters off Baja California and southern California—generally increase the amount of moisture available to the southwestern United States.
Question: Would that mean that if the energy in the air is not balanced by convective processes, temperatures would have to rise?
Answer: Yes. If extra moisture (and therefore extra latent energy) is added to the air column and that energy is not removed or redistributed by convective processes, the excess energy will generally raise air temperatures.
Question: Would it mean a greater rise in overnight lows than daytime highs
Yes. Increased atmospheric moisture (from the excess eastern-Pacific SST) that is not fully removed by convection tends to raise overnight low temperatures more than daytime high temperatures, narrowing the diurnal temperature range.
Why the effect is stronger at night:
- Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Extra moisture absorbs outgoing longwave (infrared) radiation that the surface emits after sunset and re-radiates some of it back downward. This slows nighttime radiative cooling, so temperatures do not fall as far → higher minima.
- Daytime effects are weaker or opposing.
– Extra moisture can increase low-level cloudiness or haze, which reflects some incoming solar radiation and limits how high daytime temperatures climb.
– The higher heat capacity of moister air and the energy used in evaporation also moderate the rate of daytime warming.
The net result is that the same added energy produces a larger upward shift in overnight lows than in afternoon highs.
Me: So water vapor is the crucial aspect here, impacting temperatures when it’s lower than when it’s higher?
Answer: Yes — water vapor is the crucial factor, and its impact on temperature is typically stronger when the air starts out drier (lower moisture) than when it is already humid.
Me: So in a larger sense. Given the increase in water vapor from the increase in SST over the last 40 years, we can explain why the warming is greater over the Arctic (much of it in the coldest time of the year).
Answer: Yes. The large-scale rise in SST over the last ~40 years increases evaporation and therefore atmospheric water-vapor content. That extra water vapor produces a stronger warming effect in the Arctic—especially in winter—precisely because of the temperature dependence of the saturation mixing ratio and the nonlinear greenhouse properties of water vapor.
Me: This would mean the dewpoint anchor hypothesis on warming is crucial, right?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/25/testing-the-dew-point-anchor-hypothesis/
Answer: Yes — the dew-point anchor idea is a natural and crucial extension. Here’s why it fits tightly with the points already established:
- Rising SSTs increase evaporation → higher atmospheric water vapor → higher surface dew points.
- The saturation mixing ratio’s strong temperature dependence means that the same absolute moisture increase raises the dew point more effectively (and has a larger relative impact) in colder, drier air.
- Overnight and winter temperatures are physically limited by the dew point: clear-sky radiative cooling can drop the air temperature only to the dew point before condensation begins and latent-heat release slows further cooling. Raise the dew point and you raise that natural temperature floor.
- Therefore, a long-term rise in dew points (driven by the multi-decadal SST increase visible in the 1986 vs. 2026 maps) preferentially lifts nighttime and winter minima — exactly the pattern that appears stronger in the Arctic winter composite than in the summer composite.
The Dew-Point Anchor Hypothesis formalizes this by treating the lifting-condensation level (or an effective dew-point-derived surface anchor) as a primary lower-boundary condition that influences the thermodynamic structure of the lower and middle troposphere. In that view, the observed moistening does not merely add a greenhouse term; it shifts the entire convective/thermodynamic reference level upward, producing a larger temperature response where the baseline dew point is lowest (cold, dry Arctic winter air).So yes: once the focus is placed on water vapor, saturation mixing ratios, and the differential impact in dry versus moist air, the dew-point anchor concept becomes a central mechanistic link between the SST-driven moisture increase and the observed spatial/seasonal pattern of warming
Me: So which is the singer, and which is the song? ( previous blog)
https://www.cfact.org/2026/07/17/who-is-the-singer-and-who-is-the-song/
The man-made warming hypothesis relies on the idea that emissions are warming the air, which expands the “thickness” of the troposphere, allowing more evaporation and a feedback that keeps building. I understand that. If there is less water vapor in the air, then the radiative feedback of CO2 can’t impact it as much. More WV, more impact on the water vapor, and so it warms. That idea claims the ocean is absorbing the excess heat from the air. The ocean then warms, and more WV is added to the air.
They have a point, but only to a point, and I don’t think you can say exactly what that is relative to the entire picture of the geological time scale, for instance, and the large natural drivers
Countering this, and why I just showed the example in the southwest, is the idea that the ocean is feeding the air, and the reaction in the air is because of the release of heat from the ocean. Again, who is the singer and who is the song?.
But here is what one has to remember. If you can find honest brokers (people who have been into the weather all their life and not come along on a bandwagon of climate change or whatever) that disagree with you, you can become stronger because of that. It’s tough to find. For many, if saving the planet, or our way of life (as many on my side of this issue are), is the primary goal, it will distract from the focus on really finding the truth. I believe that the answer is in the depths of the ocean and the power of the sun, input from a geothermal source that we have no idea what it actually is doing given the lack of truly deep ocean data, and of course the sun. The distortion of the warming is leading to less cloudiness over the tropical oceans, as the vertical velocity pattern of the entire global system has been disrupted toward a La Nina Base state (wait till you see the La Niña response to this El Nino, and again it’s a response to warming, not a sign of cooling), and that is a warm global pattern. And as long as its being fed by excess heat from the ocean, it will continue. The most exciting thing about what I am pushing is that we are far more likely to see a downturn in the geothermal input than a reduction of CO2 input. If the geothermal input does decrease, and after a lag we do not see the ocean cooling or at least leveling off, then the man-made idea does carry more weight. However, if it does cool, we know it’s the other way around.
No such test can exist for anyone wanting to save the planet and maintain our way of life, for you will only believe based on what you see. And if you only see one thing, it’s what you will believe. The total-picture test is needed. Each forecast I make is a test of right or wrong. And if wrong, then it leads to an increase in total knowledge (if you already knew something, you don’t gain any extra knowledge). In a way, this is a grand test.
The geothermal input argument gives me a convenient excuse for why I was wrong earlier. But I did not have the knowledge about this then that I do now. But as my dad said, if you are right, it’s a reason. Wrong is an excuse. This next test, and again I showed a local event and tied it into the bigger picture, is probably the one that will contribute the final piece of the puzzle for what we see going on.